Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:22 AM Henk Smit <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Huaimo Chen wrote on 2020-07-14 06:09:
>
> >  2). IS-IS TTZ abstracts a zone to a single node. A zone is any target
> > block or piece of an IS-IS area, which is to be abstracted. This seems
> > more flexible and convenient to users.
>
> I don't agree that this convenience is really beneficial.
>
I actually think this convenience is a downside.
>

I actually think not  having more configuration across the network to
enable a new feature is more useful even if
you don't do this operation every single day (especially if you want to
roll back).


Link-state protocols are not easy to understand. And we already
> have the misfortune that IS-IS and OSPF use different names for things.
> Adding the new concept of a "zone", while we already have the
> concept of an area makes things only more complex.
>

Agree in general.

I would say this is no more complex than what has been adopted already or
the slew of proposals we have been seeing here.

I too think as some other said we should have ideally adopted only one
proposal by merging whatever possible.
As  that is not the case and 2 parallel proposals have already been
accepted as WG experimental track, and given the interest/support on this
particular topic
I would think it's reasonable to continue this experiment in IS-IS too as
is done in OSPF.

--
Uma C.